DSM 5 Censorship Fails
Support from professionals and patients saves free speech
Posted Jan 12, 2012
Last week I described the plight of Suzy Chapman, a well respected UK patient advocate forced to change the domain name of her website by the heavy-handed tactics of the publishing arm of the American Psychiatric Association. The spurious legal excuse was commercial protection of the 'DSM 5' trademark; the probable intent was to stifle one of the Internet's best sources of DSM and ICD information. This bullying could not have come at a worse time—just as final decisions are being made on highly controversial DSM 5 proposals and with the third and final draft due for release this spring. This is precisely when a ragged and reckless DSM 5 can most benefit from the widest and most open discussion.
Though APA's trademark claims were patently absurd, Ms. Chapman did not have the necessary resources for a protracted fight against a well staffed legal department. Visits plummeted drastically to her new Web address (reaching a nadir of just one hit per day) and the site faced months of slow recovery. But the good news is that APA's clumsy attempt at censorship has backfired, free speech will prevail, and the site is now more popular than ever.
Suzy Chapman writes:
"I want to thank the many psychiatrists, allied mental health professionals, and science writers who have spoken out in opposition to what they see as arrogant censorship on the part of the American Psychiatric Association. Their outpouring of concern has generated considerable interest on websites, blogs and social media platforms. This has increased the traffic on my site by many hundreds of visitors per day. The support of professionals and patient groups illustrates the power of the internet to resist suppression of patient advocacy and to promote free speech."
"The purpose of my site is to raise public and stakeholder awareness of the forthcoming revisions of both DSM-5 and ICD-11. I endeavor to provide timely and accurate information about DSM-5, including: Internet commentaries on proposals; flag ups of journal papers and editorials; news releases and other media statements; and updates on changes to the DSM-5 timeline. I also cover progress on ICD-11, including activities of the Revision Steering Group; documents, presentations and videos; and updates on the ICD-11 timeline. I report on developments with the forthcoming U.S. ICD-10-CM and proceedings of a U.S. federal Advisory Committee to HHS in relation to coding issues. Finally, I follow the advocacy campaigns and initiatives relating to DSM and ICD classificatory issues. My objective is to help stakeholders understand the issues so that they may provide the most useful feedback to the revision process."
"Despite all the controversies, despite the calls for independent review, despite all the delays and limitations of its field trials, DSM-5 hurtles forward towards publication in May 2013. During this final, decisive year of DSM 5 decision making, I shall continue to publish information, updates and commentaries to promote the widest possible dialogue around the drafting of this most important publication. My new site, 'Dx Revision Watch—Monitoring the development of DSM-5, ICD-11, ICD-10-CM' can be found at: http://dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com."
"This experience has taught me that the APA trademark claims were not only misguided, but probably legally indefensible. 'Nominative fair use' is permitted those who are publishing criticism within texts if use of the trademark is relevant to the subject of discussion or necessary to identify the product, service, or company. Courts have found that non-misleading use of trademarks in the domain names of critical websites (like walmartsucks.com) is to be considered 'fair use' by non-commercial users - so long as there is no intent to misrepresent or confuse visitors to the site and when it is clear that the site owner is not claiming endorsement by, or affiliation to, the holder of the mark."
"Everything I have read suggests that my clearly non-commercial use of my previous subdomain name (dsm5watch.wordpress.com)—with its prominent disclaimer and no intent to mislead—falls well within the concept of 'fair use'. This then raises the obvious question—what grounds did APA have for serving me with demands and threats of possible legal action? Several people have independently sent me materials on 'SLAPP' lawsuits (strategic lawsuit against public participation). These are threats of legal action intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense- so that they will abandon their criticism or opposition."
"If you are interested in learning more about 'SLAPP' lawsuits, there is a good summary at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is also a very useful resource for legal advice on trademark law for blog and website owners. See http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/IP."
"The surprisingly spirited and unanimous internet reaction provoked by APA's actions will probably discourage it from future pursuit of other 'fair use' site owners. I certainly hope so. But if other site owners are issued inappropriate 'cease and desist' claims, I do hope they have the resources to seek legal advice before complying."
"I am very grateful for all the support received in the past week and the many emails thanking me for the work I do. It is gratifying to hear that not only do patients, caregivers and patient organizations rely on my carefully researched and presented content, but that so many professionals are also following my site and find it useful. This experience has been stressful, but I can now say confidently that APA's actions have definitely backfired—the many hundreds of additional viewers discovering the site each day will expand its audience and its usefulness."
All of us owe great thanks to Ms. Chapman and to the Internet community whose ringing endorsement has allowed her not only to maintain, but also to enlarge, her readership. Ms. Chapman will continue to provide the field with the most current and most accurate reporting on DSM 5 during its endgame. I strongly recommend her website as the best clearinghouse for information on DSM 5.
I join Ms Chapman in hoping that this embarrassing episode will discourage APA from all future efforts at abusive censorship—whether they are related to trademark, copyright, or confidentiality agreements. The field must remain vigilant in its efforts to contain APA commercialism and persistent in trying to penetrate APA's secrecy and inbred decision making. APA must finally come to realize that DSM 5 is an open public trust, not a private business enterprise.